06 Jul 2121
Case : Rukmini Suryabhan Bele v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Writ Petition No. 6445 of 2020
Court : Bombay High Court
Bench : Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice S. G. Mehare
Decided on : 06 Jul 2121
Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Brief Facts & Procedure History
1. The Petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. An advertisement was published by Respondent No. 2/Chairman, District Integrated Health and Family Welfare Society and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad on 03.11.2019 declaring the selection process for filling in various posts, including the post of a “Taluka Samuh Sanghatak” (Taluka Group Co-ordinator) under the National Health Mission purely on contract basis for 11 months. Only one post was available for the Taluka Group Co-ordinator, which is at issue in this petition.
2. The Petitioner has based this petition on the select list for the post of Taluka Group Co-ordinator dated 13.07.2020 which was published by Respondent No. 2 showing the Petitioner at Sr.No.1 on the strength of her aggregate marks being 70.45. This score included 70% of the final year graduation course marks, which rule was universally made applicable to all the candidates while computing their scores.
3. On 21/07/2020, the Petitioner appeared before the competent committee with necessary documents. By the impugned communication dated 20.08.2020, Respondent No. 2 intimated to the Petitioner that her final year graduation marks are actually 58.22% as per the marks memo and not 86.36%, which was erroneously recorded while calculating her aggregate score in the selection process. Apparently, on account of the correction made by Respondent No. 2 in the erroneously calculated aggregate score, the Petitioner did not retain serial number 1 in the select list.
The Issue(s) of the Case
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to quashing and setting aside of the order dated 20.08.2020 issued by Respondent No. 1?
The Observations of the Court
The Honourable Bombay High Court observed the following:
1. Opined that mere selection does not give a right to appointment and no indefeasible right is created merely because a candidate is in the select list. Hence, the Petitioner can not dispute that she had scored 58.22% marks in her final year of graduation.
2. Took cognizance of the record that her aggregate score was on an erroneous calculation by taking into account her final year graduation score to be 86.36% while placing her at Sr.No.1 in the select list for "Taluka Group Co-ordinator".
3. Observed that Respondent No. 2 has not unilaterally introduced a new rule only to cause prejudice to the Petitioner or a different set of selection criteria was made applicable only to the Petitioner by way of an exception.
4. Further opined that the selection criteria followed by respondent No. 2 was universally made applicable to all the Applicants. Therefore, there is no allegation of nepotism or bias or prejudice or personal animosity between Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner.
The Decision held by the Court
The Honourable Bombay High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 6445 of 2020 on the account of devoid of merits.